148 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 
Our great cave-explorer, Dr. Buckland,’ in 1823, was the first to ascribe the speleean 
remains to the fossil Tiger, without, however, giving any reasons for his conclusion. 
His rival, Dr. Schmerling, in 1833, in his réswmé of the species of Felis in the caverns 
of Liége,” considers that Felis spelea, was allied to the Lion, but of a distinct species. He 
figures, however, bones from the same locality as belonging to the existing Lion; but 
confuses them with those of the Felis antigua of Cuvier, which was not a Lion, but a 
Panther (F. Pardus). 
MM. Marcel de Serres, Dubreuil, and Jeanjean,’ writing in 1839, insist on the specific 
distinctness of Felis spelea from the recent. Lion, assigning as the principal difference the 
shortness of the muzzle. Like Dr. Schmerling, they identify a second species with the 
latter animal. 
M. de Blainville, in 1841,* rejects the view advanced by Marcel de Serres and Dr. 
Schmerling, that the smaller bones ascribed to the Lion belong to a species differing from 
Felis spelea,on the ground that they were probably not those of an adult. He, however, 
offers no opinion on the exact affinities of Lelis spelea. 
M. Pictet,’ in 1844, uses nearly the same words as Marcel de Serres and his fellow- 
workers in his notice on Felis syelea. He does not recognise the smaller remains as 
those of Felis leo. 
M. Gervais,® in the first edition of his ‘Paléontologie,’ published in 1848, regards 
the animal as a Lion (Felis leo major), without assigning any reasons for his conclusion. 
Professor Owen,’ 1842, adopted Dr. Buckland’s opinion, and terms the animal a 
“spelzean ‘Tiger,’ although he recognises the want of evidence sufficient to put the 
question of its species beyond dispute. He reproduced his views in 1846, in the ‘ British 
Fossil Mammals."* In 1859, however, he published, in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions,” 
a figure of a skull with the nasal processes restored as in the Lion. It is clear, therefore, 
that he recognises the leonine nature of the animal, for his figure shows that characteristic 
which is of specific value in determining Lion from Tiger. 
Dr. Falconer is quoted by the eminent French paleontologist M. Lartet,’® in 1864, as 
holding the view that Felis spel@a was identical in species with the Tiger inhabiting the 
north of China and the region of the Altai, and that it was driven out of Europe “ par 
le développement progressif des sociétes humaines.” In 1858" he enumerated “Cave 
Lion” among the remains from Kent’s Hole. 
‘Reliquiz Diluviane,’ p. 261, 1823. 2 «Oss. Foss. de Liége,’ tom. ii, p. 93, 1833. 
‘Oss. Foss. de Lunel-Viel,’ p. 101, 1839. 4 «Ostéographie,’ article “ Felis,” p. 115, 1841. 
‘Paldéontologie,’ vol. i, p. 186, Ist ed., 1844; vol. i, p. 228, 2nd ed., 1853. 
‘Zoologie et Paléontologie Francaises,’ vol. i, p. 123, Ist ed., 1848; vol. i, p. 227, 2nd ed., 1859. 
‘Report of British Association,’ 1842. 
‘British Foss. Mam.,’ 1846. 
‘ Philosophical Trans.,’ pl. xii, “ Memoir on Thylacoleo,” 1859. 
10 «Revue Archéologique Cavernes du Périgord,’ p. 21, 1864. 
1 * Paleontological Memoirs,’ vol. ii, p. 457, 1868. 
So ont mo eS 
